[vitehozonage]

I dislike how you frame it as a personal failure to do what is necessary. It is a societal failure. People may have strong self-control, and want to have completely more primitive lifestyle which would likely improve their mental state, but escaping the industrial society can be simply out of reach for many people. For example if you're poor and born in a city-state you may never even have the capacity to experience camping.

[nightowl_games]

Society is not under your control. Laying the blame at society's feet is a way for those who are suffering to abscond themselves of the burden to change their behaviour.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter who's fault it is, it just matters what you do about it.

Of course, the truth is somewhere in between, but leaning towards "take personal ownership of the problem" is probably a better default setting.

[antonvs]

> a way for those who are suffering to abscond themselves of the burden to change their behaviour.

Much as you've absconded yourself of the burden of using words correctly.

"Abscond" means "to depart secretly and hide oneself" - it makes little sense in the above context.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

This is giving boomer

[rglynn]

Why can't it be both? On the one hand, well intentioned economically mobile people are not practising healthy sleep habits. On the other, our societal structures do not facilitate or encourage healthy sleeping patterns.

The reason to prefer the indivualistic framing is because one has far more control over one's own behaviour.

[piuantiderp]

Individual problems have individual solutions.

[janalsncm]

I disagree that they are individual problems. This isn’t Sparta. Many of the negative mental health externalities were created either inadvertently or deliberately to maximize shareholder (read: wealthy, mostly older people) money. It’s irresponsible.

And notice I didn’t say value. Profiting off of making another person doesn’t add value. It extracts it from them, like the scream extractor in Monsters Inc.

[astrange]

This kind of thinking is associated with 70s New Leftism and is mostly wrong. You can spot it because it says every problem is caused by "corporations" or "billionaires". I think it's interesting to look at how it's actually different from Marxism, which basically says today's small business owners are the reactionary class, not the big ones.

The reason old people are powerful is 1. they vote in every election 2. they have lots of free time 3. they own land 4. there's a lot of them. They're not called baby boomers for no reason.

I think the main reason you see activists advocate against "corporations" is because the activists want the government to privatize everything in a different way by having nonprofits run it, which are not "corporations" but are usually even more corrupt.